but I view Fincher only as a director for House of Cards, and doubt that the first 2 episodes would be much different if directed by someone else.

Dude, the argument between the two Underwood in the first episode is the best dialogue scene Fincher ever directed. The dialogue is cool and the acting is terrific, but the low-key but how precise direction is what makes it art. I'm ready to watch 12 seasons of House of Cards, even if it turns into Dallas, just because of that scene.

For cinema a film which relies on the writing will never become more than an 8/10 entertainment, and for an 8/10 it must already be well directed.

Un Air de Famille is "well directed" and relies on the writing, it's a 10/10 without any hesitation. You have to watch it 5 times to understand thought (after m first watch i would have given it 7/10).

That's all interesting, but does not change necessarily my point of view.

I did not see much more in the Fincher episodes than in the others, I even can't remember which dialogue you mean, but then I only watched it once. Maybe I did not watch it enough, maybe this is something were our tastes differ.

Un Air de Famille is a film I don't know. Maybe it is in fact a director's movie? Don't underestimate Klapisch.

And all that stuff in BB is maybe a bit over-interpreted, maybe not. I hope they also checked what speaks against their theories. But I like the idea.

Btw do you see why Quantum of Solace is a brilliantly conceived and directed masterpiece?

Un Air de Famille is a film I don't know. Maybe it is in fact a director's movie? Don't underestimate Klapisch.

You should watch this one you'll like it. It's some kind of a hybrid: it's adapted from a play (writen by Bacri and Jaoui) and interpreted by the actors who played in the theater play. Any director working from there cannot be considered as "the auteur" of the film, there are simply too much forces against that. But Klapisch intelligently directed it (very smart framing with a lot of hidden close up) and added a few "cinema moments" (nice flashbacks). It's not the kind of directing I admire since I have the feeling that with enough work I will be able to manage something like that some day. Hence, I don't call it genius. But I heavily respect it, hence calling it "good directing".But what gives the movie 10/10 is the dialogue. This one is perfect and could not have reached that level of perfection without 1 year of training and 6 months on stage.

I did not see much more in the Fincher episodes than in the others, I even can't remember which dialogue you mean, but then I only watched it once. Maybe I did not watch it enough, maybe this is something were our tastes differ.

He directed the post production anyway and every director in season 1 was trying to emulate the style he gave to the first episode. You should rewatch the argument scene, it's so simple and effective. I'm in love.

Also, you should check out Fargo (which is really good) and Better Call Saul (which is really incredible). There is much more visual experimentation in BCS's first 2 episodes than in most stuff you've seen in theater last year.

Absolutely not. I don't think it's all bad but it's really boring to me. But i'm very interested in what you or DJ can say to defend the movie because there is clearly something I'm missing out here.

For one reason or another I have digged much deeper in the structure of QoS, than in any other film in the last 15 years. One reason was some online discussion with some Bond fans who really hate it, and who wrote incredible stupid things about it, like that the only reason they could imagine for the fast cutting of the action was that it was so badly filmed that they wanted to hide this. It was in parts hilarious, but these hardcore Bond fans are of course extremely conservative. But I watched it 6 times complete yet, which is a record for a contemporary film, and I liked it more with every viewing.

The possible key tot he film's structure is that this is the first Bond which is about Bond, and that everything in QoS is directly connected with Bonds inner struggle (as a direct sequel to the ending of Casino Royale), and that the films style is connected to that too. From this point of view it becomes very interesting, apart from the beautifulness from nearly every shot.

Btw Noodles, your short film reminded me in some shots of QoS and otherwise of Mulholland Drive.

The possible key tot he film's structure is that this is the first Bond which is about Bond, and that everything in QoS is directly connected with Bonds inner struggle (as a direct sequel to the ending of Casino Royale), and that the films style is connected to that too. From this point of view it becomes very interesting, apart from the beautifulness from nearly every shot.

I guess I agree with this. I also thought everything was handled with great economy. I also liked the fact that there was a character's death where that death actually had some impact, the first time that that had happened in a Bond film since OHMSS. Also, I liked the plot (yeah, water really is more valuable than oil--let me stake you to the floor of a desert for a week and I'll prove it to you).

Fargo, the series (2014) 1080p - 9/10. 10 episodes. Coen Bros TV. Sort of. Joel and Ethan produced from a distance, and the makers of the series took pains to reproduce the look of the Coen's films--with camera lenses and set ups the Bros like to use. Obviously the 1996 movie is referenced, and there are several elements (though no characters) common to both: a very capable female police officer, an amateur crook interacting with hardened professionals, a small-town Minnesota setting (here played by Alberta). There are nods to other Coen films as well: Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, No Country For Old Men, even A Serious Man--a Jewish character is introduced just so he can deliver a parable in the style of "The Goy's Teeth" (not nearly as well made, of course). What makes this series work is the excellent plotting and character development. And this series is a complete story--none of that come back for the next season to find out what happens B.S.--with a beginning, middle, and very satisfying ending. So it's more like a 10-hour movie than a TV show. And just when I thought I had this thing pegged, episode 8 came along and jumped us ahead one year. And then threw in a trip to Vegas. I have to say, I didn't see any of that coming. Best of all is the character played by Billy Bob Thornton, a truly Satanic figure who enjoys spreading unease wherever he goes. It isn't enough that he kills people for a living (and business is good)--whenever he has a free second he likes to get to the poise of anyone within hearing distance--a random man or woman, even a child. It's just something he likes to do. He's a fervent dysangelist, spreading the bad news. He's like the Javier Bardem character in No Country, but more voluble, and funny. It's probably Thornton's greatest role. The proof that this series is better than average television is that as soon as I'd finished the final episode I wanted to re-watch the whole thing again, something I'll no doubt do very soon. TV series don't usually affect me that way.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 12:06:45 PM by dave jenkins »

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.

For one reason or another I have digged much deeper in the structure of QoS, than in any other film in the last 15 years. One reason was some online discussion with some Bond fans who really hate it, and who wrote incredible stupid things about it, like that the only reason they could imagine for the fast cutting of the action was that it was so badly filmed that they wanted to hide this. It was in parts hilarious, but these hardcore Bond fans are of course extremely conservative. But I watched it 6 times complete yet, which is a record for a contemporary film, and I liked it more with every viewing.

The possible key tot he film's structure is that this is the first Bond which is about Bond, and that everything in QoS is directly connected with Bonds inner struggle (as a direct sequel to the ending of Casino Royale), and that the films style is connected to that too. From this point of view it becomes very interesting, apart from the beautifulness from nearly every shot.

Fargo, the series (2014) 1080p - 9/10. 10 episodes. Coen Bros TV. Sort of. Joel and Ethan produced from a distance, and the makers of the series took pains to reproduce the look of the Coen's films--with camera lenses and set ups the Bros like to use. Obviously the 1996 movie is referenced, and there are several elements (though no characters) common to both: a very capable female police officer, an amateur crook interacting with hardened professionals, a small-town Minnesota setting (here played by Alberta). There are nods to other Coen films as well: Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, No Country For Old Men, even A Serious Man--a Jewish character is introduced just so he can deliver a parable in the style of "The Goy's Teeth" (not nearly as well made, of course). What makes this series work is the excellent plotting and character development. And this series is a complete story--none of that come back for the next season to find out what happens B.S.--with a beginning, middle, and very satisfying ending. So it's more like a 10-hour movie than a TV show. And just when I thought I had this thing pegged, episode 8 came along and jumped us ahead one year. And then threw in a trip to Vegas. I have to say, I didn't see any of that coming. Best of all is the character played by Billy Bob Thornton, a truly Satanic figure who enjoys spreading unease wherever he goes. It isn't enough that he kills people for a living (and business is good)--whenever he has a free second he likes to get to the poise of anyone within hearing distance--a random man or woman, even a child. It's just something he likes to do. He's a fervent dysangelist, spreading the bad news. He's like the Javier Bardem character in No Country, but more voluble, and funny. It's probably Thornton's greatest role. The proof that this series is better than average television is that as soon as I'd finished the final episode I wanted to re-watch the whole thing again, something I'll no doubt do very soon. TV series don't usually affect me that way.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle - 8/10 - Lots to enjoy here: the nuts-and-bolts depiction of blue-collar crime, the terse writing and seedy atmosphere, nice acting by Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle. Only demerit is the score, which sounds like a cheap TV show.

In the Company of Men - 6/10 - 2nd viewing. Neil LaBute makes John Osborne seems like Mr. Rodgers. A 100 minute exercise in bile, interesting up to a point, but collapses under its own premise after awhile. Aaron Eckhart's surely one of the least pleasant film characters I've encountered.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle - 8/10 - Lots to enjoy here: the nuts-and-bolts depiction of blue-collar crime, the terse writing and seedy atmosphere, nice acting by Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle. Only demerit is the score, which sounds like a cheap TV show.

very good movie. don't remember the score

---

Life is hard ... but it's harder if you're stupid!

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

I finally saw The Third Man (thanks to TCM's 31 Days of Oscar) ... Has some very famous moments, but overall I am not as enthralled with the movie as many other people are. Good movie, not an all-time great for me

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.